On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 02:58:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Let's do that then.
Yep, 2.067 sounds good and it seems one of gdc/ldc will have a
2.067 before 2.069.
How about doing a PR for the sources? Seems to me we're just
sitting around jawboning, and not moving forward!
This discussion is necessary. Switching to ddmd is a big change
with lots of consequences and you should be willing to spent some
time to make better decisions.
At least we're not excluding gdc/ldc now. We still have to decide
on an update policy for the baseline compiler that works for
dmd/gdc/ldc and we need to figure out how to test for
compatibility.
https://trello.com/c/4NtxWDtK/48-ddmd-bootstraping-and-backwards-compatibility-guarantees
I'd propose that we require ddmd to be compilable with the latest
2 versions of dmd/ddmd, e.g. 2.067.x and 2.068.x and with the
latest available versions of gdc and ldc.
This should be tested and enforced before releasing a new version
of ddmd, so we should write a test script for that.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
